I saw this article yesterday too. I think you have to wait and see how this plays out, and you have to get other opinions from experts on ancient inscriptions. Biblical Archaeology Review is as good of a place as any to get that, so we'll have to wait and see how it plays out in the pages of BAR in the upcomming months. (Too bad I let that subscription expire.)

Speaking just as a historian and not as an expert in paleography, I would have to say that the author did not totally make her case. Just because the second part of the inscription may be written by a second person, and someone who was not as literate as the first person, does not mean it could not all originate in the first century. After all, she labors the point that not all inscriptions were made by pros, and were often done by family members. It is very possible that another family member at the time, and a less literate one, or perhaps even a non-Jewish family friend, wanted to memorialize the fact that this was Jesus' brother, and thus made the second inscription. I don't know, it could still be a later fake (the owner who had it seems to be somewhat blank about it), but for right now I'm still willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Looking at the picture provided, the second part of the inscription definitely has a "penciled-in" look. I'll let the scholars have a crack at this first, but just looking at it, you get the feeling that someone was thinking, "If I add this to the inscription, I can charge more for it".

As I said before - even if this was real, it wouldn't prove anything about the validity of Christianity. It would prove Jesus existed, but I know very few people who doubt there was ever a such person as Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by El NastioAs for the box, if it's not true that won't change my mind at all regarding Christ. Christ is Christ, I don't need that box as proof to myself that Christ exsists because I have faith.

I'm with you on that, hence the term "blind faith". Some have taken that term to mean something bad, i.e following blindly or stupidly.

I take it to mean that regardless of whether or not I've seen Him, I know/have faith that he exists. See without seeing...get it?

As for the box, I don't know that anything "religiously" conclusive can come from modern science. We can put it in the proper date/time frame, and possibly compare the inscriptions with previously found relics, but none of us will ever know for sure. At least not in this world.

I think it has been established for 90% or so that there was a historical Jesus. That would be a fact.If that Jesus was the son of God would be faith as we cannot prove that from a logical point of view.

But does it matter really? As Douglas Adams wrote, if we prove God exists there is no more faith and believe..it would ruin the whole ting.

As for the pope raising an army..the man cannot raise an arm by himself. But don't worry..if there would be religious wars all masses will rise and kill to prove their point..